See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257004298

Rubble mound breakwaters.March2008

Data · September 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 4,769

1 author:

Helge Gravesen
Technical University of Denmark
113 PUBLICATIONS 141 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Partly retired View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Helge Gravesen on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

LECTURE NOTES
MEK DTU: HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
RUBBLE MOUND BREAKWATERS
DRAFT
March 2008
By
Helge Gravesen

1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4
(from AU Port Engineering) ................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1.1 Components of a rubble mound breakwater ....................................................................... 5
1.1.2 Types of rubble mound breakwaters ................................................................................... 6
1.2 Construction of rubble mound breakwaters ............................................................................... 9
1.2.1 Construction methods ......................................................................................................... 9
1.2.2 Construction procedure ....................................................................................................... 9
1.2.3 Quarry run ......................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Wave-structure interaction ....................................................................................................... 11
1.3.1 Types of wave breaking on slope ...................................................................................... 11
3.3.2 Wave run-up and run-down .............................................................................................. 12
1.3.4 Wave reflection ................................................................................................................. 14
1.3.5 Wave transmission ............................................................................................................ 15
1.3.6 Wave force on armour layer and armour unit stability ..................................................... 15
1.3.7 Wave force on superstructure ........................................................................................... 18
1.4 Structural design of rubble mound breakwaters ...................................................................... 19
1.4.1 Failure modes of rubble mound breakwaters .................................................................... 19
1.4.2 Definition of armour layer damage ................................................................................... 19
1.4.3 Armour layer ..................................................................................................................... 21
1.4.4 Conventional filter layer design ........................................................................................ 21
1.4.5 Core ................................................................................................................................... 22
1.4.6 Berm .................................................................................................................................. 22
1.4.7 Rear slope .......................................................................................................................... 23
1.4.8 Superstructure ................................................................................................................... 23
1.5 References ................................................................................................................................ 24
APPENDIX 1: New hydraulic stability formula f ......................................................................... 25
2 EXAMPLES OF RUBBLE MOUND BREAKWATER FAILURES ............................................ 29
2.1 Sines Portugal .......................................................................................................................... 29
2.2 Arzew-el-Djedid. Algeria......................................................................................................... 31
2.3 Bilbao. Spain. ........................................................................................................................... 32
3. DETERMINATION OF PARTIAL COEFFICIENTS (FROM PIANC, 1992) ............................ 35
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 35
3.2 Overall Concept of the Proposed Partial Coefficient System .................................................. 35
3.3 Method of Determining the Partial Coefficient ....................................................................... 36
3.4 Breakwater Types and Failure Modes ..................................................................................... 36
3.5 Format for Partial Coefficients ................................................................................................ 36
3.6 Format for Mulit-Failure Modes .............................................................................................. 38
3.7 Ranges of Parameter Variations ............................................................................................... 39
3.8 Design Eqations and Recommended Values of kα and kβ........................................................ 43
3.9 Example of the Application of Partial Coefficients ................................................................. 46
3.10 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 47
4. BREAKWATER OPTIMIZATION FOR HARBOURS ............................................................... 49
4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 49
4.2. Optimal Utilization of Natural Rock ....................................................................................... 49
4.2.1 Quarry Rock and Stone Classes ........................................................................................ 49
4.2.2 Core Material .................................................................................................................... 50

2
4.3. Rubble Mound Breakwaters with Limited Requirements to Crane Capability ...................... 51
4.4. Type of Breakwater Structure ................................................................................................. 52
4.4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 52
4.4.2 Requirements to Crest Elevation....................................................................................... 53
4.4.3 Very High Breakwater ...................................................................................................... 53
4.4.4 Concrete Armour Units ..................................................................................................... 55
4.5. Requirements to Filters on Ruble Mound Breakwaters .......................................................... 55
4.5.1 Filter Layer Thickness ...................................................................................................... 56
4.5.2 Examples of Stone Gradations for Rubble Mound Breakwaters ...................................... 56
4.5.3 Filter Layers for Breakwaters with Precasted Concrete Armour Units ............................ 57
4.5.4 Conclusion on Filter Layers .............................................................................................. 58
4.5.5 Fiber Cloth as Hydraulic Filter ......................................................................................... 58
4.6. Utilization of Sand as a High Foundations for a Breakwater ................................................. 59
4.6.1 High Sand Foundation ...................................................................................................... 59
4.6.2 Sand Asphalt and Bitumen Solution ................................................................................. 59
4.7. Rubble Mound Breakwater with Core of Clay ....................................................................... 60
4.8. Berm Design ........................................................................................................................... 61
4.9. Toe on Steep Hard Slope ........................................................................................................ 62
4.10. Oblique Incident Waves ........................................................................................................ 62
4.10. Oblique Incident Waves ........................................................................................................ 63
4.11. Overtopping Volumes ........................................................................................................... 64
4.12. Rear Side Stability for Quarry Stone Structure ..................................................................... 65
4.13. Stability of Breakwater Head ................................................................................................ 65
4.14. Construction Stages............................................................................................................... 66
4.15 References .............................................................................................................................. 67

3
INTRODUCTION

The present notes have been based on:

- Liu: Port Engeneering. Lecture notes from AU
- PIANC (1992) section on partial coefficients written by H.F.Burcharth
- Juul Jensen, O., Gravesen, H, and Kirkegaard, J (1983): Breakwater optimization for small
craft harbours
- Juul Jensen, O.(1984): A monograph on rubble mound breakwaters

4
1. RUBBLE MOUND BREAKWATER. GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES
(from AU Port Engineering)

1.1 Introduction

Rubble mound breakwaters are used for protection of harbours and beaches against wave action.
They are also used for protection of navigation channels and beaches against sediment
transportation.
The energy of incident waves are mainly dissipated by wave breaking, partly reflected back to the
sea and partly transmitted into harbour due to penetration and overtopping, cf Fig.1.1.

Fig. 1.1. Illustration of incident wave energy transformation in front of a rubble mound breakwater.

1.1.1 Components of a rubble mound breakwater

A rubble mound breakwater is composed of core, berm, filter layer, armour layer and
superstructure, cf. Fig.1.2.

Fig.1.2. Components of a conventional rubble mound breakwater.

The purpose of the core is to prevent wave transmission into harbour; therefore, it is of importance
that core material is not too coarse. The core is usually constructed of natural gravel or quarry run.

The berm functions as the foundation for the armour layer. Besides, the berm may catch armour
units displaced from armour layer, by which the slope of the armour layer becomes more gentle
and the breakwater stability may improve. The berm is normally constructed of large stones of
quarry run or the most coarse filter layer.

The objective of the filter layer(s) is to prevent the core material from being washed out through
armour layer. Sometimes it is necessary to design multi-filter layers. Filter layer is also called
underlayer. It is built of quarry run.

5
The purpose of armour layer is to protect the core from direct wave attacks by the dissipation of
wave energy. Historically armour layer was built of large rocks. Today the increasing size of
vessels makes it necessary to construct a rubble mound breakwater in deep water. This calls for
larger armour units. If stones of sufficient size are not available, concrete armour units, such as
cubes, tetrapods, dolosse are used, cf. Fig.1.3.

Compared to rocks, concrete armour units, especially the slender type, have the advantage of
being interlocked with high permeability and porosity as armour layer, which make them more
stable and more effective in dissipating wave energy. This leads to the adoption of steeper cross
sections and hence, the reduction of the construction volume. However, slender types of units can
be easily broken.

The superstructure is used either in order to reduce the crest elevation or to reduce wave
overtopping, or as a roadway for traffic or pipelines. The superstructure is usually constructed of
concrete. Superstructure is also called wave screen, crown wall or parapet wall.

Fig.1.3. Examples of concrete armour units.

1.1.2 Types of rubble mound breakwaters

Various kinds of rubble mound breakwaters are shown in Fig.1.4. Fig.1.4-a.is the simplest rubble
mound breakwater, consisting of a mound of stones. However, a homogeneous structure built of
stones large enough to resist displacements due to wave forces is very permeable and will cause
too much penetration not only of waves but also of sediments if present in the area. Moreover,
large stones are expensive because most quarries yield a lot of finer material and only relatively
few large stones.

Consequently a real structure will consist of a core of fine material covered by big stones to
prevent the finer material from being washed out, filter layers must be constructed, cf. Fig.1.4-b.
In Fig.1.4-c. a superstructure and concrete armour units are introduced. Note that the slope built of
concrete armour units is steeper than that of stones. This means a great reduction of the
construction volume.

The armour units in conventional multilayer structures, Figs.1.4-b and 1.4-c, are designed to stay in
place as built, i.e. the profile remains unchanged with only minor displacements of armour units. In
the case of rock armour a design can also be based on some natural reshaping of the seaward
profile during wave action (self-adjusted profile). In this way relatively smaller rocks can be used
because nature will optimize the profile to be the most resistant to wave action. If the mound is
large enough to prevent complete erosion of the crest, then an S-shaped profile will develop as

6
indicated in Fig. 1.4-d. This type of structure is often called a berm breakwater due to the large
berm of armour stones placed during construction, and is designed for no overtopping.
Multilayer rubble mound structures might be given an S-shaped or bermed profile as shown in
Fig.1.4-e in order to reduce the wave forces, run-up and overtopping.

Completely submerged breakwaters are called reef breakwaters, which is mainly for the protection
of beaches. They are constructed either as conventional multilayer structures or as homogeneous
structures as shown in Fig.1.4-f. Most of the existing submerged breakwaters are actually the
remains of normal breakwaters that were not repaired after severe damage.

The selection of the types of rubble mound breakwaters depends on availability of materials,
construction methods, maintenance methods. Usually two or more types of rubble mound
breakwaters will be chosen for the subsequent design phase and model tests. The final is chosen
based on economy versus reliability.

7
Fig.1.4. Types of rubble mound breakwaters (Burcharth, 1998).

8
1.2 Construction of rubble mound breakwaters

Contractors bidding for the breakwater constructions are free to choose the method of the
construction within certain limitations. This means that the choice of construction methods is
handed over to the contractors. However, it is always necessary in the design process to consider
how the breakwater is to be built. For example, a wider berm should be designed if the berm is to
be constructed by a less accurate construction method in order to assure the berm to support the
armour layer.

1.2.1 Construction methods

There are in principle three construction methods.

Dry: To construct the breakwater in the dry behind a cofferdam or at extreme low tide. It is the
most accurate construction method. However, it is seldom the case because cofferdams are
available only if they are built for other purposes, and the construction should not wait for the
extreme low tide.

Land: To place or dump the material from the equipment standing on the breakwater. The top of
the breakwater serves as a roadway during the construction. This may makes the width at the top
of the breakwater wider than required. The superstructure of breakwaters may form an excellent
foundation for crane rails in the construction of large breakwaters for which huge cranes are
necessary. It is necessary that the roadway is at such a high level that the safety of equipment is
not endangered by waves.

Floating: To place or dump the material from floating equipment, such as barges. It is the most
inaccurate construction method. It requires a positioning system to guide barges. Besides, waves
and currents hamper barges from accurate placement of materials. But it is often the most
economical construction method, especially if materials are delivered to the site on barges. Barges
are often used to place the large volumes of materials needed for the core and the lower part of a
breakwater. Sometimes barges are also equipped with a crane in order to make it possible to place
the material at higher level and to place the armour units. In practice the combinatory of floating
equipments and breakwater-based equipments will normally be the most economical and efficient
way to construct a rubble mound breakwater.

1.2.2 Construction procedure

Rubble mound breakwaters are in general very vulnerable during construction. The construction
strategy should aim at the completion of the armour layer at the earliest possible stage. Fig.1.5
shows an example of the construction procedure of a rubble mound breakwater. The construction
method is the combination of floating equipments and breakwater based equipment.

Fig. 1.5. Construction procedure of a rubble mound breakwater (Agerschou, et al. 1983)

9
The berm stones are placed either by barge crane or breakwater-based crane, not dumped. The
berm is usually built first because it forms the boundary for the core and filter to be dumped. The
core and filter materials were dumped either from barges or from the free end of the breakwater.
The core and filter materials tend to stand with a rather steep slope (natural angle of repose). This
means that it is often necessary to use other equipment to make the slope flatter. For the
construction of the filter layer the breakwater-based equipment is preferred in order to control the
filter layer thickness.

The armour units are placed by a crane, usually from the breakwater, but sometimes also from
barges. The free drop height of the concrete armour units should be specified so that the units do
not break. In order to assure the uniform distribution of armour units to be placed randomly, a grid
system indicating the position of each unit can be used. Superstructure is normally cast in-situ in
elements of app. 5 - 10 meter length.

1.2.3 Quarry run

Rubble mound breakwaters require very large quantities of rock materials of various gradings and
qualities.

Because natural stones are seldom available in sufficient quantities and sizes the materials must in
most cases be supplied from quarries. The output from a quarry in terms of sizes and shapes is,
however, not only dependent on the applied blasting technique but to a large extent on the type of
rock and the degree of weathering. A sample of quarry blocks will cover a range of block weights
(or masses). The cumulative distribution of block weights is the basis for the definition of
characteristic block weights, sizes and gradings, cf. Fig.1.6.

Fig. 1.6. Illustration of cumulative block weight distribution.

10
The equivalent cube length D50 used is defined as

where W50 is the median weight and ρs is the mass density of the stone.

As an indicator of the gradation (grading width) is often used the ratio, D85/D15 =
(W 85/W 15)1/3 or W 85/W 15.

In breakwater engineering the following classes are often used, cf. Table 1.1.

Table 1.1. Conventional gradings and their application.

Application
Gradation D85/D15
(conventional)
Armour layer, berms,
Narrow < 1.5
filter layers
Filter layers, (maybe
Medium 1.5 -2.5 berms and armour
layer
Wide 2.5 -5 (or more) Core materials

1.3 Wave-structure interaction

This section discusses the wave structure interaction. Functional relationships between the main
environmental parameters, structural parameters and the structural responses are given in terms
of formulae when they exist. The formulae are derived mainly from physical considerations and
scale model tests and are valid only for the tested parameter ranges.

1.3.1 Types of wave breaking on slope

The kinematics of regular waves breaking on smooth, impermeable slopes can be qualitatively
described by the so-called surf-similarity parameter or Irribarren number, which characterizes the
type of wave breaking.

The breaker types and related ranges of ξ-values are given in Table 1.2.

11
Table 1.2. Types of wave breaking and ξ-values. Regular waves, smooth and impermeable slope.

For irregular waves some characteristic values of wave parameters, e.g. significant wave height
Hs, peak wave period Tp or mean wave period Tm are used for the determination of ξ-values.
Moreover, Table 2 can be used only as a reference.

3.3.2 Wave run-up and run-down

Wave breaking on a slope causes up-rush and down-rush. The maximum and minimum elevation
of the water surface measured vertically from still water level are denoted by Ru, run-up, and Rd ,
run-down, respectively, see Fig.1.7.

The value of Ru helps to determine the crest elevation of rubble mound breakwaters. And the value
of Rd gives hint on the range where the slope should be covered by armour units. Ru and Rd
depend on the water depth, wave climate (wave height, wave period and wave attack angle), and
the structure (slope angle, the surface roughness and the permeability and porosity of the slope).
The following dimensional analysis shows that wave run-up is proportional to the wave height.
should be read as proportional to. It is reasonable to assume that the velocity of up-rush at still
water level is proportional to the maximum horizontal velocity of water particle when wave breaks,
i.e.

umax equals the wave celerity c when the wave breaks.

In shallow water the wave celerity depends on water depth

And the wave height is proportional to water depth when the wave breaks

If there is no energy loss during the process, by energy conservation

12
Fig. 1.7. Definition of wave run-up and run-down.

Obviously the conclusion holds for wave run-down.

The empirical formula for regular wave run-up on smooth and impermeable slope reads

The empirical formula for irregular wave run-up on smooth and impermeable slope reads

There are also empirical formulae taking into considerations rough, permeable slopes, bermed
slopes, oblique waves and 3-D waves. Wave run-down can be positive as well as negative. A
positive run-down means that the down-rush process is interrupted by the up-rush from the
proceeding wave, and the water level on slope is always above the still water level.

Regular wave run-down on smooth, impermeable slope can be calculated by the empirical formula:

1.3.3 Wave overtopping

Wave overtopping is often represented by the average volume of water overtopping the crest of the
breakwater per second per meter length of the breakwater, even though the amount of overtopping
varies considerably from wave to wave and in most cases the bulk of the average discharge is
caused by a limited fraction of the waves.
No standards for overtopping exist. However, some critical values structure, m3/s/m, have
been established on the basis of field observations, cf. Table 1.3, which corresponds to targets
situated few meters behind the breakwater crest.

13
 3
Table 1.3. Critical values of average overtopping discharges, m /s/m
Fig.1.8 shows the parameters related to . The relative free board R/Hs is the most important
dimensionless parameter, because model tests show that the dimensionless Q is decreasing
proportionally to the exponential function of R/Hs, i.e.

where a and b are empirical coefficients depending on the geometry of the structure.

Fig. 1.8. Parameters related to overtopping.

1.3.4 Wave reflection

Rubble mound breakwaters reflect some proportion of the incident wave energy. If significant, the
interaction of incident and reflected waves can create a very confused sea with very steep and
often breaking waves. It is a well known problem in many harbour entrance areas where it can
cause considerable manoeuvring problems to smaller vessels. A strong reflection also increases
the sea bed erosion potential in front of the structure (scour). Moreover, waves reflected from
breakwaters can in some cases create or increase erosion of neighbour beaches.

The reflection can be quantified by the reflection coefficient

where Hs significant wave height of incident wave

Hs,r significant wave heights of reflected wave
The reflection coefficient for smooth, impermeable and non-overtopped slope reads

14
and for non-overtopped rock slope reads

1.3.5 Wave transmission

Waves behind a rubble mound breakwater are caused mainly by overtopping, but also by wave
penetration. Wave transmission can cause ship manoeuvre problem inside a harbour.
Wave transmission can be characterized by a transmission coefficient, C, defined as

where Hs,t is the significant wave height on the harbour side of structures.

1.3.6 Wave force on armour layer and armour unit stability

Wave breaking on slopes causes up-rush and down-rush, which are characterized by the velocity
v. v is highly non-stationary with respect to both velocity and direction.
The flow forces acting on an armour unit by up-rush and downrush is schematized in Fig.9. The
flow is assumed to be quasi-stationary, i.e. the inertia force FI is neglected.

Fig. 1.9. Illustration of forces on armour units.

The armour unit size is characterized by an equivalent cube length Dn =(M/ρa)1/3

M and ρa are the mass and density of the armour unit respectively.
The gravity force is the submerged weight of the armour unit

The lift force FL is caused by the difference in pressure on the upper and lower side of the unit due
to the velocity difference.
The drag force FD consists two parts: skin friction force acting on the surface of the unit and form
drag force due to the difference in pressure on the up-flow and down-flow side of the unit. For the
case of rubble mound breakwater armour unit, the form drag force is many times larger than the
skin friction force. Applying the Morison equation the flow forces on a resting unit can be expressed

15
as follows:

Because

and

(cf. section on wave run-up and run-down) the resultant flow force may be written

C is a coefficient.
There are several armour unit displacement modes, cf. Fig.1.10.

Fig. 1.10. Armour unit displacement modes.

Take the sliding of armour unit during down-rush as an example, cf. Fig.1.11.
The criterion for stability may be expressed:

16
or write into the form of the well-known Hudson formula

The stability coefficient KD is an empirical coefficient depending on the type of armour unit, wave
steepness, etc. For other armour unit displacement modes the stability formulae are basically the
same as the one derived above.

However, Hudson formula, which was developed for rock armour, where the stabilizing force is the
weight of rocks, cannot represent the stability of concrete armour unit layer, whose stability
depends both on weight and interlocking. With respect to the contribution of the weight of concrete
armour unit to the hydraulic stability, the more gentle the slope, the bigger the contribution, as
expressed in Hudson formula. But on the other band, the interlocking ability increases with the
increase of slope angle (before the slope reaches its natural angle of repose). This means that
there is an optimum slope which maximize the stability of concrete armour unit layer.

Today it becomes more popular to use the stability number Ns, defined as

Fig. 1.11. Unit sliding during down-rush.

17
1.3.7 Wave force on superstructure

The wave forces on a superstructure exposed to irregular waves are of a stochastic nature. The
forces acting on a superstructure at a given instant are schematized in Fig. 12.

Fig. 1.12. Wave forces on a superstructure.

The wave generated pressure, pw, acting perpendicular to the front of the wall is the one, which
would be recorded by pressure transducers mounted on the front face. Fw is the instantaneous
resultant of the wave generated pressures pw. The instantaneous uplift pressure, pb, acting
perpendicular to the base plate is equal to the pore pressure in the soil immediately under the
plate. The resultant is Fb. At the front corner, f, the uplift pressure p, equals the pressure on the
front wall.

At the rear corner, r, the uplift pressure, p, equals the hydrostatic pressure at r. The actual
distribution of pb between pt and p depends on the wave generated boundary pressure field and on
the permeability and homogeneity of the soil. The distribution cannot be determined in normal
wave flume scale tests because of strong scale effects related to porous flow. However, the corner
pressures p and p can be measured or estimated, and in case of homogeneous and rather
permeable soils and quasi-static conditions, a safe estimate on the mast dangerous uplift can be
found assuming a linear pressure distribution between a maximum value of p and a minimum value
of p.

Armour and filter stones resting against the front of the wave wall will introduce an armour load,
pah, on the front through the contact points. Both a normal soil mechanics load and a proportion of
the dynamic wave loads on the armour contribute to pah. The resultant force Fah is generally not
perpendicular to the front due to friction between the armour and filter stones and the wall, and
must be split into the two orthogonal components F and F’.

18
1.4 Structural design of rubble mound breakwaters

1.4.1 Failure modes of rubble mound breakwaters

In this context failure means excess of a design damage criterion, e.g. excess in displacement of
armour units or excess in overtopping. All possible failure modes must be identified and considered
in the design process.
The failure modes of a rubble mound breakwater are indicated in Fig.1.13. They can be classified
into

It should be stressed that these failure modes interact with each other, e.g. the erosion of toe berm
and the breakage of armour units will speed up the erosion of the armour layer, excessive
overtopping might cause the failure of the rear slope.

Fig.1.13. Failure modes of a rubble mound breakwater (Burcharth, 1993).

Fig.1.14. Definition of the eroded area Ae.

1.4.2 Definition of armour layer damage

Categories of the unit movement are

1) No movements
2) Rocking

19
3) Small movement: displaced by less than 2D
4) Displacement: displaced by more than 2D

There are 3 parameters defined to represent the armour layer damage.

1) The relative displacement D is defined as

2) The strip displacement N0d is defined as the number of the units displaced within a strip of one D
width.

3) The relative eroded area S is (cf. Fig 1.14)

The relative displacement D has been used for long time. But the use of the total number of units
as a reference has the disadvantage that D values depend on the height of the slope. The strip
displacement N0d was presented recently in order to overcome the disadvantage. But it cannot
account the effect of the packing density, e.g. N0d values are the same if two identical slopes have
the same number of displaced units, even though the one is covered by, say 100 units and the
other by 200 units.

The relative eroded area was first introduced in the study of beach erosion. For the slope formed of
uniform concrete armour units, if settlement is disregarded, then

unfortunately the relationship between N0d and S depends on the type of units and the slope angle
due to the settlements.
There are 3 stages of the damage
1) Initial damage. There is very limited number of displaced units.
2) Moderate to severe damage. There are some displaced units. The armour layer remains stable
as a whole. Usually it is the design criterion.
3) Failure. The damage is so severe that the filter layer is exposed directly to wave attack.
Table 1.4 gives the values of D, N0d and S corresponding to the damage stages.

Table 1.4. Damage parameters and damage stages.

Moderate to
Initial
Damage parameters severe Failure
damage
damage
D <2 5-10 15
N0d <0.5 2-3 5
S slope 1:1.5 2 3-5 8
S slope 1:2.0 2 4-6 8
S slope 1:4.0 3 8-12 17

20
1.4.3 Armour layer

The weight of the individual armour unit is determined by Hudson formula,

KD values, corresponding to moderate damage and determined from model tests, are listed in
Table 1.5.

For the armour units to be located at the round-head of the breakwater, the mass should be
increased by 50 %. There are also other stability formulae developed recently for various types of
concrete armour units, cf. Appendix 1.

The lower bound of armour layer is app. 1.5 x Hs below the still water level. In the case where
superstructure is applied, the horizontal width of armour layer in front of the superstructure should
be at least 3 times the equivalent cube length of the armour units in order to avoid severe wave
impact on the superstructure.

Armour layer is usually composed of two layers of armour units placed randomly on the slope.
Table 1.5 lists the packing density of armour units, porosity and layer thickness coefficient of
armour layer. The number of armour unit per unit area, the concrete volume per unit area and layer
thickness is determined by number of armour units per unit area.

Table 1.5. Characteristic parameter values of arm our units, two layer random placement

type of armour unit rock cubes Tetrapods Dolosse

Stability coefficient KD 3 6 10 12
Packing density φ 1.26 1.3 1.0 0.83
Porosity p 0.37 0.33 0.5 0.56
layer thickness coefficient c 1 1 1.02 0.94

1.4.4 Conventional filter layer design

The purpose of filter layer(s) is to prevent the finer material in the core and the sea bed from being
pulled out through the armour layers. Significant migration of the material into the coarser material
will lead to settlements and might cause reduced porosity and permeability of the filter layers
resulting in reduced hydraulic stability of the cover layers. It is easy to formulate filter rules which
assure no or marginal migration. However, such restrictive rules necessitate more filter layers to
overcome a certain difference in size of core and armour layer. Table 6 gives more applicable rules

21
for conventional filter layers. More advanced design of filter layers than the conventional one is
described in Section 4.

Table 1.6. Conventional filter rules.

The thickness of the filter layer should be at least twice of the average equivalent length of filter
stone. Moreover, it should also be at least half of the equivalent cube length and armour units in
order to prevent filter damage during the placement of armour units.

1.4.5 Core

The core material is generally quarry run, which usually has a wide gradation. The core should not
be constructed of too coarse materials in order to avoid undesirable transmission of waves and
sediment transport through the breakwater. Coarse core material might also facilitate venting
underneath superstructures.

On the other hand a lower limit for the size of material should also be set in order to prevent wash-
out, of the finer material. This is due to the consequent risk of larger settlements and inconvenient
deposition of the materials. Also, if very fine material is used for the core it might be necessary to
use several filter layers to avoid out-wash. Finer materials are also less suitable for construction
due to the smaller natural angle of repose (very gentle slopes) and the vulnerability to erosion in
waves and currents.

In practice the mass of core materials ranges

1.4.6 Berm

The main function of berm is to provide support for the armour layer. The width of the berm should
he at least 5 to 10 times the stone dimension of the berm. If less accurate construction methods
are used, such as dumping of stones from floating equipment, a wider berm is recommended. In
the case of shallow water, concrete armour units may be used for the construction of the berm. It is
normally recommended to construct the berm with a trough on the inner side. This trough gives
better support for the armour layer. Moreover, it makes the placement of filter and armour layer
easier. Berm design is further discussed in Section 4.

22
Berm stone size can be estimated by

1.4.7 Rear slope

If there is no severe overtopping, the filter materials are used for the protection of the rear slope.
Moreover, a rather steep slope, say 1:1.5 or even 1:1.25 can be applied. If there is significant
overtopping, larger stones are needed to protect rear slope. Generally model tests should be
performed to check the rear slope stability, even though there are some research results. Some
guidance is given in Section 4.

1.4.8 Superstructure

The most common failure modes of concrete superstructures are shown in Fig. 1.15. Quite often
the combinations of failure modes occur.

Fig.1.15. Common failure modes of concrete crown walls.

It is usually necessary to perform model tests in order to determine wave forces on the
superstructure.

Prediction of the breakage of wall is the simplest case if the sense that only the wave loads on the
front wall and the strength of the structure need to be known.

23
The total stability of the superstructure must be investigated by considering both the resistance to
sliding and overturning and the bearing capacity of the foundation. They will be treated in the
section on the overall stability of caissons.

Due to the uncertainty related both to wave loads, uplift pressure and coefficient of friction it is
important to apply a safety coefficient in such calculation. Severe wave impact on the
superstructure can be avoided either by increasing the crest level of the armour layer or by
increasing the width of the berm in front of the superstructure, cf. Fig.1.16.

Fig. 1.16. Typical superstructure configurations.

1.5 References

Brorsen, M. Burcharth, H.F. and Larsen, T. , 1974. Stability of Dolos Slopes. Proc. 14th Coastal
Engineering Conference, Copenhagen.

Burcharth, H.F. and Brejnegaard-Nielsen, T. , 1986. The influence of waist thickness of dolosse on
the hydraulic stability of dolos armour. Proceeding of the 20th International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, Nov. 1986.

Burcharth, H.F. and Liu, Z. , 1992. Design Dolos armour units. To be published in Proc. 23th
Coastal Engineering Conference, Venice, Italy, 1992.

van der Meer, J.W. , 1988. Stability of cubes, Tetrapods and Accropodes. Proceedings of
Breakwater’88, Eastboune, 1988.

van der Meer, J.W. , 1988. Rock slopes and gravel beaches under wave action. Ph.D. thesis, Delft
University of Technology, the Netherlands, 1988.

24
APPENDIX 1: New hydraulic stability formula

25
26
27
28
2 EXAMPLES OF RUBBLE MOUND BREAKWATER FAILURES

Memphian’s Law: Anything, which might go wrong, will go wrong

2.1 Sines Portugal

Sines Portugal. Armour layer is 42 t Dolosse on the slope 1:1.5

Failure started from breakage of Dolosse and erosion of armour layer Sines Breakwater, Portugal
(Jensen, 1984)

29
Fig 2.1 Sines breakwater damaged

30
2.2 Arzew-el-Djedid. Algeria.

Fig. 2.2 Arzew breakwater damaged

Fig. 2.3 Design of Arzew breakwater

Arzew-el-Djedid. Algeria. Armour layer is 48 t Tetrapods on the slope 1:1.33.Failure stated from
breakage of Tetrapods and erosion of armour layer. Port d’Arzew-EL-Djedid, Algeria.(Jensen,
1984)

31
2.3 Bilbao. Spain.

Fig. 2.4 Bilbao breakwater after damage

Fig. 2.5 Original design at Bilbao

32
Fig. 2.6 New design at Bilbao

Fig. 2.7 Test result with new design

33
Fig. 2.8 Test results for new breakwater plotted against stability coefficient (Irrebaren’s formula)

34
3. DETERMINATION OF PARTIAL COEFFICIENTS (FROM PIANC, 1992)

3.1 Introduction

This section include mainly:

1. Investigation and selection of the overall concept of the partial coefficient system and
development of a partial coefficient format for single failure modes

2. Calculations of the partial coefficients for the considered failure modes. Evaluation of the
accurancy of the system. Consideration of multi-failure modes

3. Development of guidelines, and the discussion of design implications.

3.2 Overall Concept of the Proposed Partial Coefficient System

It is characteristic of existing civil engineering codes of practice, e.g. for steel and concrete
structures, that:
- partial coefficients are related to combinations of basic variables rather than to each of them, in
order to reduce the number of coefficients
- the partial coefflcients reflect the safety level inherent in a large number of well proven designs.
(Two sets of coefficients covering permanent and temporary structures are usually given, but the
related average probabilities of failure are not specified. As a consequence it is not possible by
means of the normal structural codes to design a structure to a predetermined failure probability).
It is not considered advisable to copy this latter concept in safety recommendations for rubble
mound breakwaters for the following reasons:
- It is very difficult to evaluate the safety level of existing coastal structures and breakwaters
because of lack of information, especielly an the environmental conditions, e.g. the water level
variations and the wave climate. It is, however, certain that the safety level of existing structures
varies considerably and is aften very low. Consequently, it is not possible to produce sets of partial
coefficients which, in a meaningful way, are calibrated against existing designs.
- Due to the very nature of coastal engineering where design optimisation dictates considerable
variations in the safety level of the various structures it is advisable to have sets of partial
coefficients which correspond to various failure probabilities. Using these, the designer and the
client will be able to decide, an the basis of optimisation and cost-benefit analyses, that the
structure should be designed for a specific safety level, for example, 20% probabiity of failure (Pf =
0.20) within a structural lifetime of T = 80 years where failure is defined as a certain degree of
damage. The design equations should then contain a set af partial coefficients corresponding to
this failure prabability.
- The quality of information about the long-term wave climate (the dominating load) may vary from
very unreliable (wave statistics based an few uncertain data sets) to very reliable (statistics based
on many years of high-quality wave recordings and hindcast values). It is therefore necessary for
the partial coefficients to be a function of the quality of the available information on the wave
estimate, including the statistical uncertainty due to the limited number of wave data and errors in
the wave data.

Extensive calculations, performed at the University of Aalborg, of partial coefficients for armour
layer stability formulae demonstrated that it was possible to develop a system which satisfies these
demands.

35
3.3 Method of Determining the Partial Coefficient

The overall procedure for the development of a partial coefficient system was as follows:

- Define the failure modes and the failure element structure (single element analysis and/or system
analysis)
- Select the code format (design equations)
- Define intervals of the parameters, their statistical properties and combinations
- Select target probabilities of failure
- Calculate the partial coefficient
- Optimise and calibrate the system
- Verify the partial coeffieient system against the observed behaviour of existing struetures.

The partial coefficients γZ and γHswere determined from a Level II reliability analysis. The applied
computer program BWREL (Break Water RELiability program) and BW-CODE (Break Water
CODE) were developed at the University of Aalborg by Dr. John Dalsgaard Sørensen especially for
the reliability analysis of breakwaters.

3.4 Breakwater Types and Failure Modes

Originally it was intended to study five different types of breakwater concidering a wide range of
failure modes. But at the present sufficiently well documented failure formulae are only available to
justify recommendations of partial coefficients for Type 2 breakwaters - conventional multi-layer
rubble mound breakwaters with armour carried over the crest (no wave wall) and for the following
failure modes:

(1) Hydraulic instability of front face armour

(2) Hydraulic instabiity of toe berm
(3) Hydraulic stability of low crested breakwater armour
(4) Run-up

The formulae for these failure modes are given in the sections below in the form of design
equations which show how to apply the partial coefficients.

3.5 Format for Partial Coefficients

Partial coefficients on all parameters were calculated for combinations of parameter values within
defined ranges. The calculations showed that partial coefficients for many parameters were close
to 1.0. For this reason it was decided to adopt only two partial coefficients:

γ‎ Z reflecting the uncertainty of the formula and related resistance parameters

γHs reflecting the uncertainty of estimates of the main load parameter, extreme significant wave
height.

Formulae were developed to determine the partial coefficients. Three different concepts of these
formulae have been evaluated and the following were chosen as being acceptable with respect to
deviations from the largest probability of failure:

36
In the equation for γHs, the first term gives the correct γHs provided no statistical uncertainty and
measurement errors related to Hs are present. The middle term in the equation for γHs signifies the
measurement errors and the short-term variability related to the wave data. The last term in the

37
equation for γHs signifies the statistical uncertainty of the estimated extreme distribution of Hs. The
statistical uncertaincy treated in this way depends on the total number of wave data, N, but not on
the length of the period of observation. The 10 largest values of Hs over a 15-year period provide
for example a much more reliable estimate of the extreme distribution than the 10 largest values of
Hs over 2 years.

However, in the statistical analysis it is assumed, that the data samples are equally representative
of the true distribution. In other words it is assumed that the data, besides being non-correlated,
are sampled with a frequency and over a length of time which ensures that periodic variations (e.g.
seasonal) are not biasing the sample. The designer must be aware of these restrictions, and must
make allowance for them.

If the extreme wave statistics are not based on N wave data, but for example on estimates of Hs
from information about water level variations in shallow water, then the last term in the equation for
γHs disappears and instead the value chosen for must account for the inherent uncertainty.

Fig. 3.1 Encounter probability

Figure 3.1 shows the encounter probability, i.e. the probability P that the R-year return event will he
exceeded during a T-year service life.

3.6 Format for Mulit-Failure Modes

A simple series system is considered for multi-failure modes. The reliability of the system depends
on the correlation between the failure modes. Two factors contribute to the correlation, namely the
physical correlation, e.g. the erosion of a toe berm triggering a slide in the main amour layer, and
the correlation through common parameters like Hs. The physical correlations are not yet generally

38
known. Consequently, only the common parameter correlations have been implemented in the
present work.

A simple system is to treat each failure mode, i = 1, 2, 3,…,n, separately using the single failure
mode models. The upper and lower bounds of probability of the system, P could then be estimated
as:

Max is the largest of the failure probabilities of the failure modes. Above equations correspond
to no correlation and full correlation, respectively. Due to the common parameters there will always
be some correlation. However, closer bounds must await further work on correlation between
failure modes..

3.7 Ranges of Parameter Variations

A large number of Level II probabilistic calculations have been carried out at the University of
Aalborg to determine the best values of kα and kβ to use for calculating the partial factors γZ and γHs
for the Level I analysis which it is recommended should be used by designers.

The optimisation of the partial coefficients is based on calculations where all combinations of
realistic values of the failure formula parameters are considered.

The resistance parameters are modelled as normally distributed stochastic variables given by
mean values and standard deviations. An example of these values and the related range of
parameter variations is given in Table 3.1 for the Hudson equation applied to rock armour.

Table 3.1 - Parameters for the stochastic variables

39
Statistical models for the load parameter Hs were described by three of the commonly used
theoretical extreme distributions: Weibull, Gumbel and Exponential. The distributions are given
below expressing the non-exceedence probability within T years, (Hs). λ is the average number of
Hs data per year and N is the total number of data avaiiable (e.g. from a peak over threshold
analysis) for fitting the distribution.

The statistical uncertainty of the distributions is included through the parameters α and β, which
are modelled as stochastic normally distributed variables with variances based on the maximum
likelihood estimates of α and β. (It should be noted that no quality measure, correlation coefficient
or χ2-test, of the fit of a distribution to a data sample, is included in the analyses that were carried
out).

The considered distribution fùnctions are listed below. N(x1, x2) indicates a normafly distributed
parameter with mean value x1 and standard deviation, x2.

is an assumption since it has not been possible to find an analytical expression. Г is the gamma
function.

40
The Hs data samples used in the analysis are real deep water and shallow water data sets from the
North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, the Bay of Biscay and the Mediterranean Sea. Table 3.2 shows the
distribution parameters for the data sets. Figure 3.2 shows the corresponding distributions.

Table 3.2 - Distribution parameters for Hs data samples

41
Fig. 3.2 Statistical Hs distributions

42
The statistical uncertainty described through the variance of α and β does not include uncertainties
due to:

- lack of knowledge about the true extreme distribution

- climatological changes
- measurement error
- variability due to imperfect calculations of Hs and shortterm randomness.

The last two points are incorporated in the analysis by the multiplication term FHs on Hs. FHs is
modelled as a normally distributed variable with a mean value of unity and a specified coefficient of
variation, , the size of which depends on the quality of the available information.
The first two points cannot be treated through FHs, but in a design situation the designer must try
the different models for the extreme wave height and thereby select the most appropriate. A partial
coefficient system cannot take these problems into account. It is also an inherent assumption in the
analysis that the N values of Hs represent the statistical population to which H belongs. This sets
limits to minimum length of the period of observation N/λ and number of Hs data N in order to
prevent seasonal changes from biasing the results.

Calculations for the code calibration have been performed for service lifetime T = 20, 50 or 100
years, target values of probabifity of failure Pf= 0.01, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20 or 0.40, corresponding to
target reliability indices βT = 2.33, 1.65, 1.28, 0.84 or 0.25, and variation coefficients = 0.00,
0.10 and 0.20.

The partial coefficients kα and kβ have been optimised so that reliability indices are as close as
possible to the target values of βT. kα and kβ are not uniquely determined because γZ and γHs are
functionally dependent. (In the simplest case the product of these two partial coefficients must be
equal to a constant which represent a simple factor of safety).

3.8 Design Eqations and Recommended Values of kα and kβ

The values of kα and kβ, which have been obtained by carrying out optimisation for each of the
failure modes considered are presented as well as the related design equations in Tables 3.3 - 3.6.

43
Table 3.3 - Main armour hydraulic stability

44
Table 3.4 - Hydraulic stability of low-crested rock breakwaters

Tabte 3.5 - Hydrautic stability of rock toe berm

45
3.9 Example of the Application of Partial Coefficients

To demonstrate the calculations involved in the application of partial coefficients a single example
is presented in this section, based upon the Torshavn breakwater.

Torshavn breakwater was armoured with 5 – 8 t rock, ρs = 2.8 t/m3. D50 therefore varies from 1.21
to 1.42 m with a mean value of 1.30 m. It was designed for Hs = 4.0m waves representing a 50-
year return period and subsequent hindcasting confirms Hs = 4.0 m for a 50-year period. Cot α
equals 1.5 and the breakwater is at 23 m depth of water, so the Van der Meer formula for plunging
waves applies.

With a return period for the design wave equal to the service life, the probability of exceedance
during this life, given by Pf would be about 0.64. Under these conditions, the partial coefflcients are
close to unity. It will therefore be more instructive to examine a lower probability of failure and a
value of Pf = 0.2 has been chosen.

Tp for this case is calculated as follows

In the absence of detailed wave information for this site it has been assumned for the purpose of
this calculation that the extreme wave distribution can be represented by a Weibull distribution
based on the data set for Bilbao (see Table 3.2). This data set was based on 50 peak values over
a period of 12 years so λ = N + T = 4.17 and the values of a and β for use to the Weibull equation
were 1.39 and 1.06. To obtain a 50- year return period design wave of 4.0 m, it is necessary to
assume H’s (the threshold value in Weibull) = 0.44 m.
To calculate , the mean value of Hs exceeded on average once in T years, may be
replaced by the non-exceedance probability for λT events and the equation written in the form:

Substituting the above values we obtain:

= 0.44 + 1.06 (exp[ln(ln(4.17T)) + 1.39])
Which gives the following values required for calculation of γHs:

T = 50 3.98
T = 150 4.49
T = 225 4.67

Partial coefficients may now be derived using kα = 0.027, kβ = 38 and ks = 0.05:

46
The value is assumed valid for hindcast waves.

It will be seen from the above that the first term relating to the wave height distribution is the
dominant term in the calculation of γHs. This emphasises the importance of obtaining high quality
site-specific, wave data and taking great care to obtain the best extrapolation to estimate extreme
values.

The armour size may be obtained by including the partial coefficients to the design equation as
shown in Table 3.3. The following values are used, porosity P = 0.4, Δ = 1.72 (ρs = 2.8, ρw = 1.03),
no. of waves N = 2.500, wave steepness s = 0.04. Damage coefficients S = 6 is taken for moderate
to severe damage.
The design equation is:

Or

From which Dn,50 = 1.58 m corresponding to an armour mass M50 of 10.8 t. The probability of failure
with the actual armour of 5 to 8 t will therefore be, as expected, higher than Pf= 0.2.

If now the damage coefficient S is taken as 14 corresponding to very severe damage/failure the
corresponding values become Dn,50 = 1.34 and M50 = 6.7 t. These are the same as the average
armour size in the actual breakwater showing that (on the assumptions stated above) the
breakwater would have a probability P = 0.2 of suffering very severe damage/failure.

3.10 Conclusions

A method for the caiculation of partial coefficients corresponding to a given failure probability within
a given structure life, is presented. Two partial coefficients γz and γHs are applied to a design
formula. These partial coefficients are calculated from two failure mode specific coefficients, kα and
kβ, which are used together with characteristic return period values of Hs, extracted from the site-
specific long-term distribution of Hs .

So far the kα and kβ coefficients have been calculated only for a few failure modes described by
existing formulae for which uncertainty evaluation has been reported. However, it will be easy to
expand the system as more failure modes formulae with uncertainty evaluation appear.

47
It is important to notice that the reliability of the formulae must be documented, e.g. in terms of a
standard deviation, in order to implement them in the partial coefficient system.

Partial coefficients may be used in the design equations to provide design data for various
combinations of service life and probability of failure. Such calculations may be used for comparing
the effect of varying assumptions on structural life and failure probability.

As stated earlier γz and γHs are functionally dependent; kα only appears in the term for γz, and kβ
appears only the term for γHs. The values quoted for kα and kβ in Tables 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 are
therefore also functionally dependent In any further research it is proposed that consideration be
given to developing, if possible, further sets of values of kβ which are the same for al the different
failure functions but may differ according to the quality of wave data or perhaps also the method of
extrapolating to obtain the extreme values:

48
4. BREAKWATER OPTIMIZATION FOR HARBOURS

4.1. Introduction

In minor ports the costs of breakwaters will often constitute a major part of the total construction
costs. It is therefore essential from the first stage of the planning to look carefully into the
optimization of breakwaters. The optimization using physical model tests is based upon design
criteria, available resources and material and construction procedures. All aspects should be
included in the design process in order to achieve the most economical but also safe breakwater
structure.

The section will discuss various aspects of breakwater design, by presenting the authors’
experience from studies of breakwater structures. It should appear that hydraulic modelling is an
important tool in the design process. Only a correct reproduction of natural sea states in hydraulic
models can ensure reliable results from such investigations.

4.2. Optimal Utilization of Natural Rock

The materials used for breakwater construction shall fulfil certain requirements, such as stability
against wave attack, durability, block size and easy construction procedure with the available
equipment.

4.2.1 Quarry Rock and Stone Classes

The most commonly used material in breakwater structures is quarry rock, produced by blasting in
a quarry. In order to facilitate construction work and the work in the quarry, the number of stone
classes should normally be kept as low as possible. The range of stone sizes within the individual
gradations should be kept so wide that it is possible to distinguish visually between the different
gradations. Further, the individual stone gradations should normally not overlap each other.

During some projects carried out in recent years, the lack of knowledge on available stone sizes
and gradations from the quarry near the site turned out to be decisive for the breakwater profile at
a very late stage, namely after initiation of construction. In some cases the profile was modified to
fit the actual stone classes available. An example is presented in Fig. 4.1. The alternative to a
change of the profile is to blast sufficient material until the necessary amount of large stones is
achieved. This means an increase in the costs if the surplus material cannot be utilized for other
parts of the entire project.

Fig. 4.1 Profile of Breakwater at Midvaag, Faroe Islands.

49
In practice a change in profile during construction can create difficulties if not allowed in the
construction contract. It is for the above reasons extremely important for a breakwater project that
information on the specific quarry is available at an early stage. It may therefore be necessary that
test blasting are carried out in the quarry prior to or early in the design stage to ensure that the
stone classes produced from the quarry can actually be used in the design.

To make it easy to distinguish between the different stone classes, it is necessary that the
difference in relative stone sizes within a class is some 25-30% or more. A difference of 30%
means approximately a ratio of weights or volumes of 2.2 from the largest stone to the smallest
stone within the gradation.

Therefore DHI normally recommends for primary armour stones:

Wmin < Wmean <W max where:
Wmin > Wmean/1.5 and Wmax < 1.5W mean

4.2.2 Core Material

The cores of rubble mound breakwaters are generally constructed of natural gravel or of quarry
run. Quarry run used for core material may be screened to remove the finer material. This is done
in order to avoid the risk of settlements due to wash out of the finest fraction. The screening means
an extra operation in the quarry and thereby extra costs, especially if the fine material cannot be
used for construction work. It will generally be cheaper to avoid the screening. In a number of
breakwater projects in the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, the core material was not screened.
This made the operations in the quarry easy. For the Midvaag breakwater shown in Fig. 4.1 some
sedimentation of fine material was observed around the breakwater. The fine material was washed
out from the core during construction as a result of wave action. In this case the limited
sedimentation experienced was acceptable.

The vertical settlement of rubble mound breakwaters constructed from quarry run/quarry stones is
normally in the order of 2-3% of the height of the structure. There exist no rules to be applied in the
selection of the lower gradation limit for core material to be accepted in a rubble mound
breakwater. It is therefore recommended, that it is carefully analysed in each case whether a
screening of the core material is necessary.

50
4.3. Rubble Mound Breakwaters with Limited Requirements to Crane Capability

On sites where only too small stones are available or where crane capacity is too little special
types of breakwaters with a stock of stones may become feasible as described below. Skopun on
the Faroe Islands was such a case. Skopun is exposed to wave heights of about H = 6.0 m with T
= 18 s during design conditions. For this harbour on an isolated island, it would be difficult and
costly to make concrete armour units, and no area is available for stocking the units prior to
placing. In connection with a planned harbour extension different types of breakwaters were
considered, and among these the profile shown in Fig.4.2, which is a pure quarry stone structure.

Note: Profile after Extreme Wave Exposure

Fig. 4.2 Proposed Profile for Skopun in Faroe Islands.

To make the large 10-15 t quarry stones stable under extreme conditions, it would require a slope
in the order of 1:4.0. This means that a very large crane is necessary for construction. Instead the
stones are placed in a stock on the seaward side. The stones are standing with approximately the
natural angle of repose of about 1:1. Model tests have shown that the stones will be rearranged
during severe wave action until the flat profile indicated is obtained. This type of structure is
thereby self stabilizing. The breakwater was never built because finally an alternative harbour plan
including a gate in the harbour entrance was adopted.

Another example is the breakwaters at Rønne Harbour on Bornholm in the Baltic Sea, Denmark.
The harbour authorities have without model tests developed a breakwater profile for depth up to
about 4-5 m, built only by use of trucks. The profile consists of a core of quarry run dumped by
trucks covered on each side by large side dumped quarry stones. Since the layers are standing
with almost the natural slope rather thick layers are necessary to allow for rearrangement of the
stones during wave action. The crest was finished by a concrete slab of about 20-30 cm thickness
to be used for traffic and for maintenance purposes (dumping of more stones).

It should be noted that the breakwater is built on a hard bottom consisting of clay with stones. By
use of model tests, this type of profile was developed to be used in depths of up to about 8 m. Fig.
4.3 shows the initial profile and the profile after the redistribution of stones have taken place.

51
Fig. 4.3 Profile of Breakwater for Rønne Harbour, Denmark.

Such profiles should normally only be considered on sites having easy access to quarry stones to
be used for maintenance. However, if the volume of stones on the seaside is made large enough
to account for the redistribution occurring during extreme conditions, and the crest elevation is
selected high enough to ensure a safe rear side slope, this kind of profiles could also be
considered where maintenance is less easy.

4.4. Type of Breakwater Structure

4.4.1 Introduction

The selection of type of breakwater structure for a project depends upon a large number of
parameters, such as: Cost of different materials, available equipment, tradition and experience of
local contractors, requirements to the structure in terms of access for traffic, pipelines etc., and
requirements to overtopping on the rear side. It is the complex interaction of all the above aspects
that causes that two breakwaters are hardly never constructed with the same profile. In general
breakwaters may be classified by the four types shown in Fig. 4.4 (Ref. 4.1).

a Pure Rubble Mound Structure, “low”. b Pure Rubble Mound Structure, high.

c Rubble Mound with Superstructure, “low’. d Rubble Mound with Superstructure, “high’.
Fig. 4.4 Different Types of Breakwaters.

52
4.4.2 Requirements to Crest Elevation

The crest elevation of a breakwater is a very essential parameter. It is selected considering the
following aspects:
- Acceptable overspilling/overtopping conditions on the roadway or areas behind the breakwater.
- Stability of the rear side slope of the breakwater.
- Waves in a harbour basin caused by overtopping waves.

In Ref. 4.2 it was shown that the overtopping on a breakwater is highly dependent on the incident
wave height/crest elevation. This means that a small increase in the wave height or water level
may cause a very large increase in the volume of overtopping water. The stability of the rear side is
in most cases dependent on the volume of overtopping water but in a very complex way. The way
the overtopping water hits the rear side slope is decisive for the stability of the rear side. The
stability is further influenced by the possible flow through permeable layers in the crest of the
breakwater.

Fig. 4.5 from Ref. 4.3 illustrates these considerations. For type A the overtopping water is hitting
the rear side stones causing damage while for type B the energy in the overtopping water is
dissipated when the overtopping is hitting the water an the harbour side without any consequential
damage.

Fig. 4.5 Configuration of Wave Overtopping.

4.4.3 Very High Breakwater

In certain projects it can be feasible to make a rubble mound breakwater so high, that only heavy
spray passes the structure. In this case light armour can be used on the crest and rear side. An
example of this kind of structure, although not for a small craft harbour, is shown in Fig. 4.6 where
58 t rectangular concrete blocks are used as main armour, while 2-4 t rocks are used on the upper
part of the front side, the crest and the rear side.

53
Fig. 4.6 High Breakwater with Quarry Stone Armouring on Crest and Rear Side.

54
4.4.4 Concrete Armour Units

Concrete armour units with a high stability number functions mainly because of the interlocking
between the individual units. This effect is, however, very limited on the rear side corner because
the water flow lifts the units directly out of the armour layer.

It may in some cases be more feasible only to use the expensive concrete units in the front side of
the breakwater and instead construct the breakwater with natural rocks of approximately the same
weight on the top as the rear side. An example is shown in Fig. 4.7.

Note: Sprængsten = Quarry Stones

Fig. 4.7 Profile of Breakwater at Hirtshals Harbour, Denmark.

4.5. Requirements to Filters on Ruble Mound Breakwaters

In rubble mound breakwaters one or two filter layers between the core material and the main
armour layer are normally used. The purpose of the filter layer (or layers) is to prevent the core
material from being washed out through the main armour layer. For the design of geotechnical
filters (wells etc.) the Terzaghis’ filter criteria applies. In the design of filters for mound breakwaters
some confusion appears in the literature. Shore Protection Manual, Ref.4.4, recommends to use
stones with weights of 1/10 to 1/15 of the weight of the primary armour stones. This corresponds to
stone dimensions of approx. 40 to 45% of the stones in the main armour layer. For the core, the
Shore Protection Manual recommends stone weights of 1/200 to 1/6000 of the stone sizes in the
main armour layer. This means a ratio of 4 to 8 between the stone sizes in the filter layer and the
core.

In general, the criteria recommended by the Shore Protection Manual, are very strict compared
with the actual material used for many breakwaters. These criteria sometimes result in two filter
layers.

The geotechnical criteria on the other hand are somewhat hazardous to be used for breakwater
filter layers unless very strict control of the material built into the filter layer and its thickness is not
maintained during construction. Thomson and Shuttler, Ref.4.5, recommend filter criteria for design
of rip-rap slope protection which may also be used for breakwaters. These criteria fall between the
geotechnical criteria and criteria described in the Shore Protection Manual.

For comparison of filter criteria for armour and filter, Table 4.1.has been prepared. It gives all the
criteria mentioned above. Index a refers to armour- and f to filter stones.

55
Table 4.1 Filter Criteria for Armour and Filter Stones.

4.5.1 Filter Layer Thickness

Many rubble mound breakwaters are designed and built with very thin filter layers in order to
minimize the amount of filter material. Such thin layers are considered very difficult to construct
especially under the water. From a construction point of view, a thick filter layer is preferred (see
for example Fig. 4.6). The thickness should be equal to several stone dimensions and not
necessarily two as recommended by Shore Protection Manual.

A thickness equal to two dimensions of the largest stones in the gradation should be regarded as
an absolute minimum. Besides the abovementioned criteria, it is important that the filter layer is so
thick that one can be almost sure that a safe filter is present after construction. This means that
due consideration should be given to the inevitable inaccuracies during construction. Inaccuracies-
especially under water - is strongly dependent upon the construction methods applied.

Further, the filter layer is often directly exposed to moderate wave action during construction, which
may displace some of the stones. Shore Protection Manual recommends a minimum filter layer
thickness of 0.5 times the size of the overlying rock in order to ensure that the filter is not damaged
during placing of the armour stones. A minimum of approx. 1.0 times the size of the armour units
seems more safe considering all the above mentioned aspects.

Another fact that urges the use of relatively thick filter layers is the beneficial effect on the stability
of the main armour layer. Model tests carried out at DHI, Ref. 4.6, have shown that the stability of
the main armour layer is increasing with increasing filter layer thickness. This may be explained
from the fact that an increased thickness of the relatively permeable filter layer results in reduced
velocities in the downrush since relatively more of the flow discharge takes place in the filter layer.

4.5.2 Examples of Stone Gradations for Rubble Mound Breakwaters

The breakwater in Midvaag, Faroe Islands, shown in Fig. 4.1 was built without filter layer between
the core and the armour layer. The gradation curves for the construction materials appear from Fig.
4.8. It is seen that the materials are just fulfilling the Terzaghi filter criteria.

56
Fig. 4.8 Gradation Curves for Materials Used for Midvaag Breakwater.

4.5.3 Filter Layers for Breakwaters with Precasted Concrete Armour Units

For rubble mound breakwaters where large precasted concrete armour units are used as outer
protection, quarry stones are used as filter layer or secondary armour layer as it is sometimes
called. Shore Protection Manual, Ref. 4.4, recommends that the first under layer is constructed
from stones with weight approximately equal to w/10, w being the weight of the main armour units.

This applies according to Ref. 4.4 for armour units having a K factor, K < 12. For K < 20, stones of
w/5 are recommended for the first under1ayer. The experience of DHI in this matter is that the
above criteria do not necessarily have to be obeyed. The secondary armour stones should be
selected so the layer is easy to construct and forms a good basis for placing of the main armour
units.

Further, it is for exposed breakwaters of importance, that the secondary layer is composed of
relatively large stones yielding a reasonable provisional protection of the breakwater during
construction before the main concrete armour units are placed.

As an example of a breakwater profile developed by DHI, Fig. 4.9 shows a tetrapod breakwater for
a port in the Mediterranean. For this breakwater it was suggested to make only one very thick filter
layer under the armour layer of 10 m3 tetrapods. The filter layer has a thickness of 3.5 m and is
composed of quarry stones with weight 0.5-4.0 t.

57
Fig. 4.9 Tetrapod Breakwater with Thick Filter Layer.

This means stones with weights in the range 1/48 to 1/6 of the weight of the tetrapods. During
design of this project tests on the sensitivity of the stone gradations for the filter layer were carried
out. This was done in order to define a reasonable range of grading curves to be fulfilled during
construction. The study comprised also tests on coarse 6-16 t stones and fine 0.1-0.5 t stones as
filter layer to be compared with 0.5-4.0 t for the final design.

The tests with the design situation Hs = 7.0 m and Tp = 14.5 s on the coarse gradation showed that
the core material to a certain extent was washed into the filter layer. This development stabilized
and no core material was displaced out through the filter layer and the tetrapod layer.

The tests on the fine gradation filter stones showed that some of the filter stones were washed into
the tetrapod armour layer, but none of them penetrated this layer. In this case it was concluded
that the final design with 0.5-4.0 t stones is adequate, but that minor deviations in the size of the
filter stones much smaller than those tested, will be of no significance for the stability of the
tetrapod layer and would hence be acceptable. Many other tetrapod breakwaters have been tested
at DHI. For one project the range of stone size used was from 1/10 to 1/75 of the tetrapod weight
without any problems with respect to the filter layer being observed.

4.5.4 Conclusion on Filter Layers

The previous discussion and examples prove that there is a need for more practical criteria for
design of filter layers on rubble mound breakwaters, than those of Shore Protection Manual, Ref.
4.4 These criteria will often lead to multilayer breakwaters with thin filter layers. In the authors
opinion such criteria are making construction and supervision difficult, if the specifications are
really to be fulfilled. Thick filter layers with a relative wide range of stone sizes should therefore be
considered a realistic alternative.

4.5.5 Fiber Cloth as Hydraulic Filter

In many cases breakwaters have been built using a fiber cloth between sand or earth used as core
material and a gravel filter layer. Above still water level a certain thickness (say 0.6 m) is required
for the gravel filter layer in order to protect the fiber cloth from the ultraviolet light. An example of
such a structure is shown in Fig. 4.10.

58
Fig. 4.10 Example of Breakwater with a Core of Sandy Clay Protected by a Fiber Cloth.

4.6. Utilization of Sand as a High Foundations for a Breakwater

In areas where stone materials are expensive and where there is access to sand it may be feasible
to minimize the amount of stone materials.

4.6.1 High Sand Foundation

One example from the Port of Aarhus in Denmark is shown in Fig.4.11. According to the
experience gathered during construction the sand is only eroded down to a level of approx. 1.5Hs
below mean water level. The gravel layer was typically eroded to a depth of 1.0 Hs during wave
action. The construction was made by use of floating equipment.

Fig. 4.11 Profile for a Breakwater at Aarhus Harbour, Denmark.

4.6.2 Sand Asphalt and Bitumen Solution

Another possibility on sites where stone material is scarce is to use sand asphalt and bitumen for
breakwater construction. Fig. 4.12 shows an example of a new breakwater in Esbjerg Harbour in
Denmark.

Fig. 4.12 Profile of Asphalt Breakwater in Esbjerg, Denmark.

59
4.7. Rubble Mound Breakwater with Core of Clay

In certain cases specifically in shallow water with mild wave climate it may be feasible to construct
a breakwater with a core of clay. The design procedure of such a breakwater includes in addition to
ordinary hydraulic considerations:
- Analysis of risk for geotechnical failure of the bottom.
- Analysis of the stability of the slope to water potential differences.

An effect of constructing the breakwater with an almost impermeable core is that the breakwater
may form an essential part of the boundary for a dry construction pit, whereby dredging and wharf
and pier construction may be carried out in dry. Fig. 4.13 shows an example where this method
has been utilized. The earth dams were constructed of a relatively sandy moraine clay fill such a
way that the structure of the original dry material was retained as much as possible.

Fig. 4.13 Rubble Mound Breakwater with Core of Moraine (Clay Till) Clay.

60
4.8. Berm Design

A more narrow berm design may be carried out by the following graph:

S = Hs/(Tp (gd)0.5)
Where
Tp = peak period and h = water depth
Fig. 4.14 Design Curves of Berms in Rubble Mound Breakwater (Jensen,1984)

61
4.9. Toe on Steep Hard Slope

Fig. 4.15 Toe stability problems on Rubble Mound Breakwater at steep and hard slope (Jensen,1984)

With steep slopes of hard materials a safe design of the breakwater toe is a critical design aspect.

62
4.10. Oblique Incident Waves

Fig. 4.16 Design for oblique incident Wave Attack. Armour consisting od quarry stones and Dolosses
(Gravesen et al., 1979)

63
4.11. Overtopping Volumes

Fig. 4.17 Set up of field test for overtopping

Fig. 4.18 Overtopping volumes been measured (Jensen, 1984)

64
4.12. Rear Side Stability for Quarry Stone Structure

Fig. 4.19 Rear side stability for quarry structure (Jensen, 1984)

It is seen that the wave steepnes has a drastic effect to the required height of a breakwater.

4.13. Stability of Breakwater Head

Fig. 4.20 Stability of breakwater head (Jensen, 1984)

The breakwater head is more exposed than the trunk section. Larger stones/blocks or a lower
slope is required.

65
4.14. Construction Stages

Fig. 4.21 Construction stages should also be optimized for potential damage (Jensen, 1984)

Construction stages include phase with larges risk even in case of minor storms. These stages
should be studied and designed with maximum possible robustness.

66
 4.15 References

4.1 Jensen, 0. Juul. “A Monograph on Rubble Mound Breakwaters”. 1984. DHI.

4.2 Jensen, 0. Juul & Sørensen, T. “Overspilling/Overtopping of Rubble Mound Breakwaters.

Results of Studies, useful in Design Procedures”. Costa1 Engineering, 3 (1979) 51-65. Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

4.3 Gravesen, H. & Sørensen, T. “Stability of Rubble Mound Breakwaters”. PIANC, 24th
International Navigation Congress, Leningrad 1977.

4.4 Shore Protection Manual. Volume II, 1975. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Centre,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, U.S.A.

4.5 Thomson, D.M. & Shuttler, R.M. “Design of Riprap Slope Protection Against Wind Waves”.
CIRIA Report 61, December 1976.

4.6 Gravesen, H., Jensen, 0. Juul, and Sørensen, T. “Stability of Rubble Mound Breakwaters II”.
Presented at the Conf. on Coastal Structures, 1979, Virginia, U.S.A.

67

View publication stats